Com. v. Phelps, I.
3537 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Idris Phelps pleaded guilty on September 22, 2014 to third‑degree murder and attempted murder in exchange for an agreed aggregate sentence of 25–50 years; he was sentenced the same day and filed no direct appeal or motion to withdraw the plea.
- Phelps filed a first PCRA petition on September 17, 2015; new PCRA counsel filed a Finley letter and moved to withdraw.
- The PCRA court dismissed the petition on October 4, 2016 but did not serve a Pa.R.Crim.P. 907 notice; Phelps appealed pro se and submitted a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
- On appeal Phelps argued PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to claim that trial counsel coercively induced his guilty plea (layered ineffectiveness).
- The PCRA court relied on the written and oral plea colloquy, finding Phelps’s plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; the court denied relief.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding the issue waived because claims of PCRA‑counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, and alternatively rejecting the merits because the plea colloquy foreclosed an involuntary‑plea claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Phelps) | Defendant's Argument (Commonwealth/PCRA court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA counsel was ineffective for failing to argue trial counsel coerced Phelps into pleading guilty | PCRA counsel should have raised that trial counsel produced coercive advice/pressure, misleading assurances (death/life guaranteed if no plea), and failures to provide trial readiness or meaningful explanation | Claims were raised first on appeal (waived); plea colloquy and written certification show plea was knowing, voluntary, and counsel was effective | Waived. Even on the merits, no relief: plea colloquy establishes voluntariness so layered ineffectiveness fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Finley v. Pennsylvania, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (procedure for counsel withdrawing under Finley letter in PCRA context)
- Commonwealth v. Henkel, 90 A.3d 16 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness may not be raised first on appeal)
- Commonwealth v. Ford, 44 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Super. 2012) (supreme‑court precedent requires raising PCRA‑counsel ineffectiveness before PCRA court)
- Commonwealth v. Jette, 23 A.3d 1032 (Pa. 2011) (treatment of raising collateral counsel claims and procedural requirements)
- Commonwealth v. Colavita, 993 A.2d 874 (Pa. 2010) (PCRA counsel ineffectiveness claims procedural limits)
- Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standards for ineffective assistance during plea and prejudice inquiry)
- Commonwealth v. Pierce, 527 A.2d 973 (Pa. 1987) (three‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Pollard, 832 A.2d 517 (Pa. Super. 2003) (defendant bound by statements under oath at plea colloquy)
- Commonwealth v. Flood, 627 A.2d 1193 (Pa. Super. 1993) (involuntariness of plea tied to whether counsel misled defendant during plea)
- Commonwealth v. Santiago, 855 A.2d 682 (Pa. 2004) (appellate deference to PCRA court credibility findings)